Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump 101


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. To copy from at Articles for deletion/Ana Maria Archila, which I feel this also falls under:

I'm closing this early per WP:SNOW. Notability has not been challenged here by anybody, and arguing to delete on the basis of a speedy deletion criterion when the page would never be speedy deleted under the same criterion is not going to get us anywhere. I think this nomination was made in good faith, but honestly, unless there's something shown to be significantly wrong with these pages besides the creator's block evasion, I doubt the community will support mass deletion. The SandDoctor Talk 16:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Trump 101

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I originally tagged this for speedy deletion but it was declined, so we shall discuss here whether this falls under G5. My explanation is that this article was created by a blocked sock of who was previously topic-banned from editing articles that are largely focused on political biographical information  w umbolo   ^^^  15:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: No, it doesn't count under G5. For a start, the history shows about a dozen users other than Sagecandor have edited it, and I also took it through an unsuccessful GA review, in which I spent a few hours reviewing the article, making suggestions and carrying out some of them myself. (Disclosure: Sagecandor contacted me about this issue via email, but the page is on my watchlist and I would have made the same comments anyway.) — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say those technical fixes and minor additions count towards WP:G5's substantial edits by others. w umbolo   ^^^  16:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't say spending a couple of hours on a GA review, and subsequently implementing some of the changes, counts as a non-trivial contribution to the article? If so, we have very different opinions. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Reviewing is just reading the article and saying what's right and what's wrong, something like writing a professional review of a Wikipedia article. But that isn't a "substantial edit". w umbolo   ^^^  16:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The intent behind G5 is more important than the wording used. In any case, this and this are substantial edits. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bilorv and amount of secondary coverage. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Article looks okay to me, seems well sourced with decent reception which passes WP:GNG guidelines. Govvy (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bilorv. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.